Russia Reborn — Yeltsin’s Infamy and the Roots of Putin’s Popularity

As an undergraduate, I attended a history course on the Cold War led by Professor John Gaddis.

Two decades later,somescholars in discussion of the era are now re-examining whether that prolonged geopolitical conflict ever truly ended, particularly following the outbreak of the war in Ukraine. 

A recent documentary released by Netflix attempts to show how the average Russian citizen viewed the conflict, rather than the country's social or economic elite.  In doing so, the film reflects on how Vladimir Putin took control and held onto the Kremlin amidst sustained domestic support. More broadly, it offers a convincing argument on how authoritarianism is currently experiencing a resurgence around the world. 

As several former U.S. officials concede in the series, the Cold War ended so abruptly that the U.S. was unprepared for a new global order and had no clear strategic blueprint for why NATO should continue. While Western leaders claimed the alliance was not targeted at Russia, most ordinary Russians never seriously believed this assertion, and NATO in turn never seriously considered Russian membership in the organization. 

Putin leveraged Western leaders' relative inaction during this period of Moscow's marginalization, along with his country's domestic energy and military-industrial complex, to steer Russia away from the brink. 

Although most normal Russians had found the ubiquitous surveillance and totalitarian rule of the Soviet era intolerable,some did argue it offered one major benefit: stability. Despite trailing many Western countries' economies, the Soviet Union was still significantly more developed than the Third World and provided its citizens with domestic security.

Following the end of the Soviet Union,Russia plunged into chaos during a decade under Boris Yeltsin. The economy neared collapse, resources were monopolized by oligarchs, and wealth inequality soared. With many struggling for basic needs, a sense of nostalgia for the Soviet era took root. The sudden descent from a superpower to a failed state shattered democratic illusions and wounded national pride—a crisis Western observers reportedly overlooked, paving the way for a strongman like Putin.

Furthermore, Yeltsin was widely perceived as an ineffective leader. Footage from the era depicts him as frequently incapacitated by alcohol following his narrow 1996 re-election. His erratic behavior, including public stumbles and incoherent speeches, caused international embarrassment. It was reported that during a visit to the United States, he was once foundintoxicated on the street in his underwear.

For many Russians, such leadership was a source of national shame. Consequently, Putin's emergence as a disciplined strongman met significant domestic hope.

Putin's consolidation of power was largely attributed to his use of intelligence personnel to solidify authority behind the scenes while simultaneously cultivating popularity with thepublic at large. This "Authoritarian 2.0" model stands in stark contrast to the Yeltsin era.

With approval ratings near zero, Yeltsin secured re-election through deals with a group ofbillionaire oligarchs known as "The Family." The oligarchs used media under their control to spread fear of a return to Communism, and in exchange, Yeltsin allowed them to seize control of national resources through opaque processes, creating a class of ultra-wealthy individuals and fueling widespread public resentment.

From Putin's perspective, the sight of a president pleading with oligarchs for media support while mortgaging national assets was seen as an unacceptable sign of weakness.

Upon taking office, Putin launched an "anti-corruption" campaign targeting these very oligarchs, which boosted his popularity. Aided by a timely global surge in oil prices, both Russian national revenue and Putin's personal influence grew.

Putin struck deals with the elite, but on his own terms. He seized control of major media outlets and arrested the nation's wealthiest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, on charges of tax evasion and fraud. By demonstrating a lack of constraints, Putin ensured the remaining oligarchs were subservient to the state.

Observers note that Putin objectively restored stability, ending the chaos of the Yeltsin years. Through energy diplomacy, he reclaimed Russia's status on the world stage, restoring a sense of national dignity that many Western analysts failed to fully grasp.

The Chechen Wars further illustrate this shift. Yeltsin's first campaign ended in defeat and public apathy. In contrast, the second campaign, launched as Putin became Prime Minister, followed a series of major terrorist attacks that galvanized the public. Putin's brutal destruction of the capital, Grozny, solidified his strongman persona. By transforming public grievances into populist fervor, Putin successfully distanced himself from the failures of his predecessor.

These domestic factors are often underreported in Western media. While the war in Ukraine has led to immense casualties, Putin's grip on power remains firm due to these calculated strategies. Looking back at the 1990s, the U.S. policy of supporting an unpopular Yeltsin without considering alternatives is now being questioned by historians as a missed opportunity to prevent the current crisis.

＊The author is a Hong Kong-based international relations scholar and an Associate Professor at the Center for Taiwan-Hong Kong International Relations Studies, National Sun Yat-sen University. （Related： Opinion | Taiwan Enacts Landmark Labor Protection for Delivery Workers, Gap with China Widens ｜ Latest ）